Connect with us

Intelligence

NUKE APPEAL: Why Russia Won’t Give Up the Bomb

Published

on

While the United States emphasizes reduced reliance on nuclear weapons, the Russian Federation continues to stress the importance of its nuclear arsenal in its national defense strategy.

In order to provide a better understanding of the establishment and development of Russian nuclear doctrine, it is important to understand the events which prompted and contributed to the conception of the doctrine as developed. The Soviet Union’s nuclear activities began basically as intelligence collection and research against the United States, spying on its nuclear activities. When the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in WWII, nuclear research was all but suspended. “It was intelligence relating to the Maud Report in the United Kingdom, and concerns that Nazi Germany had an atomic project, that eventually led to the reestablishment of soviet nuclear research in 1943.”

The dropping of atomic bombs on Japan by the United States prompted the Soviet Union to accelerate and emphasize its nuclear weapons program. After the end of Stalin’s regime the Soviet military took control of the weapons program. At this point, both the United States and Soviet Union realized the potential destructive power of nuclear weapons and neither wanted to use them in war as an active strategy of first resort. Despite this, the Soviets understood the advantages that the possession of nuclear weapons gave them and used them to try and achieve military and diplomatic objectives. Beginning in the mid-1960s, the United States proposed a freeze on the number and type of US and Soviet strategic nuclear vehicles, the amount of which would be negotiated with the Soviet Union. This first attempt at the regulation of nuclear weapons failed. It was launched on a multilateral forum, at the Geneva-based Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee (ENDC), and failed because the US stockpile far exceeded that of the Soviets, so the Soviets refused to be party to the talks. In 1966-67, the United States and Soviet Union began nuclear talks about the deployment of anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defenses, strategic offensive and strategic defensive weapons. The result of these talks was the signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968.

Both the United States and Russia today are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’s objective is to “prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. The Treaty represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States.” The NPT entered into force in March of 1970 and 190 countries are now signed on to it. In 1995, at the Review and Extension Conference, the treaty was extended indefinitely but is still reviewed every 5 years.

Shortly after the NPT entered into force the Soviet Union and the United States began the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I), which ended in 1972 with the production of two treaties dealing with offensive and defensive arms: the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and the Interim Agreement on Certain Measures with Respect to the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty placed limits on national missile defense systems. The Interim Agreement on Certain Measures with Respect to the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms was to limit the amount of Strategic Offensive weapons on both sides of the conflict. It was only designed to be in place for five years, as a complement to the ABM treaty. SALT II followed SALT I and reduced the amount of strategic delivery vehicles to 2,250 for both sides. Both sides honored the treaty until 1986, when President Reagan declared that the Soviets had violated the treaty. One of the last treaties regarding nuclear weapons signed before the fall of the Soviet Union was the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1987, which removed the entire category of weapons, nuclear and conventional, with ranges of 500km-5,000km for both the United States and the Soviet Union.

START I was followed by START II, and though it was signed in 1993 after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, START II never went into force, due to Russian concerns about the United States’ withdrawal of the ABM treaty. START II aimed to limit the amount of warheads to between 3,000-5,000 warheads for each country. Work on START I and II paved the way for the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), signed in May 2002, which demanded that each side reduce their strategic nuclear weapons to between 1,700 and 2,200 by the end of 2012.

The main strategic defense planning document for the Russian Federation on the heels of this nuclear history is the 2010 Military Doctrine. This doctrine states that “the Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, and also in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation involving the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is under threat.” The 2010 Military doctrine was amended in 2014 to include a section about conventional weapons threatening the existence of the state, but the Minister of Defense at the time, Igor Sergeyev, assured that the condition didn’t change the overall intent of the doctrine. According to Article 22, the 2010 Military Doctrine is only retaliatory, not preventive. The wording of this section of the military doctrine mirrors that of the U.S., British, and French nuclear strategies during the Cold War, which allowed for a first-strike nuclear attack. In actuality, Russian doctrine was changed to allow for a first-strike only in the early 1990s. Though some interpret this new clause to be aggressive, Dvorkin gave an alternate and astute interpretation in that ‘the unchanged conditions for nuclear weapons use and the description of their role in ensuring Russia’s and U.S./NATO security fifteen years after the end of the Cold War reflects the fact that the principles of mutual nuclear deterrence have not been altered, although these principles are useless in counteracting new challenges and threats.”

Russia and the United States have two separate nuclear ideologies – while the U.S. proclaims to advocate for less reliance on nuclear weapons, the Russian Federation promotes their importance in its military strategy. In addition to new rhetoric, Russia has increased efforts to improve the capability of its nuclear arsenal, in an attempt to try and keep up with the capabilities of the United States. This disbalance has always been a major sticking point for the Russian Federation: it thinks it is easy (and insincere) for the United States to proclaim the ‘lack of reliance’ on nuclear weapons when the US easily outpaces all countries around the globe in terms of nuclear quantities. It means, to the Russians, that the Americans are ‘diplomatically aggressive’ about nuclear restraint while knowing it has a secret hammer hidden behind its back if ever necessary. A hammer that is far bigger and heavier than everyone else’s hammer.

The strategic nuclear policies of Russia and the United States are subject to change as time goes on and the security situation changes. Despite their long history of attempting to regulate nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia continue to alter their nuclear strategies to account for changes in the international security environment and changes with their political relationship with each other. Russia will continue to emphasize the importance of its strategic nuclear weapons to provide for the defense of the Russian Federation, as it continues to be distressed at how much the United States outpaces all others in terms of nuclear holdings. Proclamations of peaceful intent are always moot to the Russians when they can physically quantify the destructive power of the adversary’s arsenal. Deterrence may indeed be a good thing. But absence of nuclear capability is far safer to Russia than absence of malicious intent. This is the area of engagement, an attitudinal one, which the United States needs to do a much better job of when it comes to working with the Russian Federation.

Continue Reading
Comments

Intelligence

India’s Nuclear Imperilment

Published

on

Recently, a uranium smuggling racket was busted by the Kolkata police with one kilogramme of radioactive material. According to the reports, smugglers were trying to sell uranium, which has a market value of INR 30 million ($440,000).

The theft of highly sensitive material especially uranium is frequently happening in India.In November 1994, Meghalaya Police seized 2.5 kg of uranium from a gang of four smugglers in the Domiasiat region. Police in the Indian state of West Bengal in June 1998, arrested an opposition politician who they say was carrying more than 100 kilograms of uranium. In July 1998, the CBI unearthed a major racket in theft of uranium in Tamil Nadu, with the seizure of over eight kg of the nuclear material. In August 2001, Police in the Indian state of West Bengal arrested two men with more than 200 grams of semi-processed uranium. In December 2006, a container packed with radioactive material was stolen from a fortified research facility in eastern India.

Similarly, in February 2008 the police seized 4 kg of uranium in Supaul district along the Indo-Nepal border.Police in the north-eastern Indian state of Meghalaya said in September 2008 that they have arrested five people on charges of smuggling uranium ore.In December 2009, the Navi Mumbai Crime Branch arrested three people for illegal possession of 5 kg of depleted uranium.Around 9 kg of radioactive uranium, a banned material, was seized from two persons in Thane, in December 2016.

India is operating a plutonium production reactor, Dhruva, and a uranium enrichment facility that are not subject to IAEA safeguards. India’s buildup of South Asia’s largest military complex of nuclear centrifuges and atomic-research laboratories is somehow threatening efforts related to nuclear security and safety. These facilities will ultimately give India the ability to make more large-yield nuclear arms & hydrogen bombs. The international task force on the prevention of nuclear terrorism is of the view that the possibility of nuclear terrorism is increasing keeping in mind the rapid nuclear development by India. Whereas, U.S. officials and experts are of the view that India’s nuclear explosive materials are vulnerable to theft.

Contemporary Indian internal situation is worsening day by day because of the intolerance and extremism. Likewise, India has more than 65 active terrorist groups operating in different states including the location of nuclear installations. These terrorists may possibly gain access to nuclear materials and use them against civilian and military installations. In January 2016, we have seen a controversial Pathankot Airbase attack, which also shows that Indian intelligence had badly failed to provide true information about terrorist networks.

Nuclear facilities must be guarded closely and the people who are working in these facilities must maintain secrecy. However, in India, nuclear facilities are guarded by Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and CISF guard admitted that security at the installations needs more enhancements. Mysterious deaths of Indian nuclear scientists is a matter of concern as some were reported suicide and some were murdered. The possibility of nuclear secrecy gets out in the hands of terrorists cannot be ignored.

The Naxalites – India’s Maoists from the Communist Party often target the police and military bases. Though most terrifying revelation was by the EU report that seven Indian companies were involved in funding to ISIS for making bombs. Previously Indian companies were involved in illicit nuclear trade with Iran, Iraq and Libya. So the situation will be a lot worst if the Indian companies provide any chemical, biological or the nuclear material to ISIS

Several of these incidents clearly indicate the failure of the Indian nuclear security agencies. Thus the focus of mainstream media and Western governments should be the Indian nuclear program’s flawed security, expansion and rapidly increasing nuclear weapons technology.

Continue Reading

Intelligence

Know the psychology of ISIL

Sajad Abedi

Published

on

In my opinion, the “ISIS phenomenon” is not new; it distinguishes the factors of this group; for example, the audience of the world’s television networks is watching films that ISIS itself publishes. They have internet sites that send their films and photos to the world. On the other hand, the region is full of journalists because both the Syria war is underway and the Middle East regional issues are so important, so journalists can cover the moment.

In addition, the strategic importance of the Iraqi state and its oil resources was due to the fact that ISIS had its first attacks on oil and refineries, but it was effective in triggering their actions, but the thing that shook the world more than anything else, A pattern of behavior that the group represented during the capture of places; films from ISILs that were showing them on the road and checking cars, while carrying laptops with names of those who worked with the government, or any kind of their thoughts It was different from the ideology of ISIL.

The members of the group matched the driver identification card with the list of these names, and if their names were on this list, they would have been executed without trial!

These films spread throughout the world, and the wonder of the whole world prompted which ideology and religion could be, according to which, people were allowed to kill someone by merely naming and without trial, killing someone along the road and rejoicing.

The problem is that the members of this group, other than themselves, do not know the rest of the people as religious and religious, so they assume any violence and murder as loyal to their religious ideology, while many Muslims around the world, especially their classroom, are astonished at these actions and never do such acts godly and on the basis of religion and hate them.

Is Isis a Terrorist?

“Terror” means the creation of horror and fear. In fact, terror means the use of unexpected, shocking and unlawful violence against civilians to force a state or a society to accept demands based on an ideology.

But what does a terrorist want from a psychological point of view, what happens in society and what is his goal? They create psychological phenomena in society, through which they pressure the people and civilians to push them on to governments, and ultimately, to reach the demands of that group. The psychological phenomena that are caused by terrorist movements and their news in people are horror, discomfort and turmoil, unrest and restlessness, pessimism, anxiety and anxiety, anger, grief and tragedy.

Most importantly, the combination of all these unpleasant feelings is causing a lot of confusion, discomfort and insecurity inside people. But what makes the assassination possible? It is clear that those who do such behaviors do not consider themselves brutal or inhumane, and they have the absolute right to do such acts.

In recent years, investigations have been carried out on those who have had extreme behaviors. One of the most important and best investigated was Dr. Wagdey Luzza at the University of Cantabria on the terrorism of religious groups such as al-Qaeda, with the Middle East approach, and the results could be extended to ISIS. According to the study, it turned out that in the West, most of those joining these groups are men aged 17 to 23, usually from middle-class families with relatively high academic and academic achievements in modern science with academic degrees.

But the results of the 1999 study also revealed that those who carry out terrorist acts in their own countries are people with low and unemployed education who have been roughly dropped out of the text of the community, and themselves have separated themselves from the context of society.

The leaders of these radical and radical religious groups, on average 15 years older than the followers and other members of the group, are about 40 years old, have a great deal of affection and influence, are able to inspire the respect of their followers and their own self, Their ideology, in such a way that they can influence others, have intrinsically an influential personality, inspire others, encourage in the best possible way, usually do not fear death and are professors of death. Of course, in the leaders of these groups, there are people who, incidentally, completely escape death while encouraging others to die in the ideology.

Those who are attracted to groups like ISIS are abnormal?

There is no consensus on this. Some studies show that many of these people have personality disorders. Some even suffer from major psychiatric disorders. But the most important point of the personality that can be mentioned is that they have grown up in a family or a community that has created a feeling of self-sufficiency and humiliation.

These people have never been taken seriously and they feel that they are not first class citizens and their rights are different from the rights of other citizens. They feel like they are not treated to others. One of the most prominent examples of this situation may be seen in the behavior of Arab people living in the suburbs of Paris over the past 2-3 years. They were born in Paris and had a French passport, but their sense of belonging and attachment to the French community was not formed, which caused disturbances in Paris, which caused a lot of damage.

After that, the French government has just realized that it cannot continue to discriminate, and must provide grounds for joining these people to French culture while respecting Arab and Islamic culture in order not to face such rebellion and chaos.

Another aspect of the personality of the members of such groups is that they do not have personality independence and they need to follow someone else with a higher appeal. They have no self-confidence and can only feel confident within an ideology, that is, ideology with rough behaviors so that nobody dares to stand in front of them.

People who lack the sense of empathy and sympathy with others, and they are not basically born of a child of conscience, suffered a severe damage to their self-image from a childhood, which is said to be bad in their family and society, they are a bad people, their religion is not worthless. , Have a brutal nationality, and they are constantly seeking to abandon their anger, and one of the best ways to do this is to join groups that can be abused by membership and violent behavior.

Members of these groups are pessimistic about the world around them and the world, and sometimes have a lot of mental employment, for example, under the control of a very violent parent or violent and punitive rule. Groups like ISIS will be able to empower them. People with such characteristics are so influenced and influenced by a kind of hypnosis that their contacts with the facts are discontinued and their perceptions of facts are confused.

One of the things that the leaders of these groups do well is brainwashing, that is, brainwashing ideological issues in the name of reality in the whole universe, and assuring them that the truth is what their leaders say.

Another group of researchers, according to their studies, has concluded that members of the terrorist groups do not have an abnormal character at all; many of them naturally, educated and highly adhered to their ideology, and are even willing to sacrifice their lives for their ideology. In fact, these people, through sacrificing their lives, feel useful, sacrificed and sacrificed and are proud to be in this way, which ultimately leads to a great name in this world and a fortune-telling to come place for them.

In my opinion, naturally, both groups of these people are seen in groups like ISIL, and perhaps we should look at their behavior in order to find out the reality. I believe that what distinguishes natural people from abnormal is the degree of conscientiousness.

Those who believe in devotion and sacrifice and honesty are surely not willing to surrender their captive family members without trial, roadside, and in front of their eyes.

Unfortunately, due to the actions and actions of the ISIS group, it seems that most of its members have an abnormal character and their thoughts are immortal and primitive. They are usually accustomed to learning to look very straightforward. The example of this is the declaration of the caliphate for the whole world from an area in Iraq and the burning of European citizens’ passports to show that they are universal and do not think nationally! These people believe that they have established a government and a caliphate for the whole world, all of which shows their simplicity.

They see phenomena as absolute black or white, or good or bad. They see the world divided into two categories: the helpless rich, the exploited, and the poor, are miserable, and this means thinking all or nothing. Their beliefs are based on the rejection of the thoughts of others, rather than certain beliefs, and they consider all the rights to themselves. Moreover, they believe that their thinking for all ages and for all people and all the conditions is right, so they want to persuade everyone to force their ideology and if anyone opposes it, they seek to hurt him. Clearly, the analytical system of these groups is weak because the training that they have seen in their schools is more based on memory rather than analysis.

Finally, I emphasize that the formation of ISIS and its groups is the result of being repelled and humiliated by the family and society. Therefore, if any country wants a phenomenon like ISIS not to emerge, one must understand that it is necessary to respect the rights of citizenship and religion of the people

Continue Reading

Intelligence

Radicalisation of Youth in Indonesia and Counteractions

Abhishek Mohanty

Published

on

There is a generic proverb that youth are the upcoming leaders of future. But in reality, they are the leaders of contemporary times. Indonesia, with approximately 266 million population, in which almost 25% of the population is occupied by youth falling below the age of 25. Shaping this group for influencing present and future discourses of Indonesia is very important. But this young generation is ghastly being motivated towards radicalism on several pretexts, primarily politically and religiously. One of the several factors is due to identity crisis which is invoked internally by society and externally by subtle indoctrination through mainstream and social media.

There is an increasing consciousness in Indonesia that terror organisations are encouraging youths to join their ranks. This endangerment was clear since 2009 when Indonesian media telecasted a video of an 18-year old preparing himself for suicide bombing at the Hotel Marriott. The video disclosed the serene account about sacrificing one’s life for the sake of religion. The Indonesian media had unconcealed in front of the whole nation that for some of Indonesian youth, it was their responsibility to wage Jihad against infidels in the form of terrorist acts. Indonesian public found it embarrassing to digest this at that time.

But now, a worrying number of Indonesian youth have been exposed to radical political and religious orientation. Approximately 39% of university students have confessed their support to radical organisations. Fifteen provinces of Indonesia now have a “high risk” categorisation. Their students are an easy prey for radical organisations.A related narrative is also going on in Indonesian high schools. Nearly60% of extracurricular Islamic studies students are ready to engage in fierce jihad. This has caused an alarming situation in Indonesia as it is clearly visible that radical radical elements of the society have infiltrated the minds of Indonesian youth.

One of the earliest radical preachers in Indonesia is the Rohani Islam movement, which upsurged after the fall of Suharto’s autocratic regime. It has promoted radical interpretations of Islams to Indonesian youths through evening classes. Rohani apologists are now the most radical section of people in Indonesian society. Around 40% of the supporters backed to transform Indonesia into an Islamic State under a caliphate. The Rohani Islam movement comes under the purview of the Ministry for Education. But there have been negligible attempts to probe or reorient the Rohani Islam movement.

Another renowned radical organisation Jemaah Ansharut Daulah (JAD) has also been radicalising Indonesian youth since the last three years. It was established in 2015, as a result of amalgamation of more than a dozen Indonesian terrorist outfits to strengthen the influence of ISIS in Indonesia, with Aman Abdurrahman, who recently was sentenced to death for his involvement in terrorist attacks, as it’s de facto supremo. According to Indonesian authorities, the family of suicide bombers which recently perpetrated the terrorist attacks in Surabaya had strong connections with JAD. The radical organisation also runs unauthorised boarding schools study groups for Indonesian youth. It has been also alleged by Indonesian authorities that students and teachers from these schools have travelled to Iraq and Syria for training purposes.

With the issue of radicalism gaining momentum in Indonesia, several NGOs have stepped up to counter the influence of radicalism in the Indonesian society. They have carried out majority of the initiatives on deradicalisation of youths. The Wahid Foundation, like for example, visits high schools which are soft targets of radicalisation. Their activists teach lessons on subjects like peace, religious tolerance, multiculturalism and pluralism. The Jakarta-settled NGO Maarif Institute organises an annual camp youth camp to assist youth in countering the influence of radicalism. Its also organises visits to Catholic churches and Buddhist temple to promote inter-faith cooperation and has partnered with Google to host workshops on ways to combat baneful online propaganda.

The radicalization of Indonesian youth is now a major concern for the government, as inflammatory thoughts now easily move through cultures and borders with one touch, more precisely with just tapping tweet or post. There is an urgent need for maximising government initiatives towards youth related policies. Such as, there are very less public investments in youth related national programmes to tap their prolific assets. Recently, President Widodo has announced new policies to forbid youth from coming under the influence of radical views. For developing a robust framework of youth deradicalisation involves modifications in policies, societies and families.

Indonesia’s youth deradicalisation initiatives will be more complex and intriguing in the coming times. Albeit Indonesia is the best model of a multicultural, religious tolerant Muslim-majority secular democracy, still a lot has to be done in developing an environment among the youth that is free from any kind of radical orientations. One aspect can be encouraging ambitious youth leadership. Interactive sessions by senior educators won’t appeal the youth as much when compared with passionate youth leaders.

Radicalism is often a harbinger to terrorism and concentrating on radicalism signals to get rid of terrorism at the nascent stage, before it is too late for non-coercive tactics. Triumphing over radicalism will in the end not be reckoned by military actions but by encouraging non-military policies that tones up the institutional support of human development in the country.

Continue Reading

Latest

Middle East42 mins ago

Iranian Terror Plot Motivated by Threat of Regime Change

Last month, Belgian authorities arrested a married couple of Iranian origin after it was discovered that they were in possession...

Newsdesk2 hours ago

New Satellite Data Reveals Progress: Global Gas Flaring Declined in 2017

New satellite data released today shows a significant decline in gas flaring at oil production sites around the world in...

Energy3 hours ago

Global energy investment in 2017 fails to keep up with energy security and sustainability goals

The electricity sector attracted the largest share of energy investments in 2017, sustained by robust spending on grids, exceeding the...

Europe4 hours ago

EU-Japan Summit: A landmark moment for trade and cooperation

The 25th EU-Japan Summit took place on 17 July in Tokyo. At the summit, leaders signed two landmark agreements, the...

Newsdesk5 hours ago

World Tourism Day Places Focus on Innovation & Digital Transformation

The importance of digital technologies in tourism, providing opportunities for innovation and preparing the sector for the future of work,...

Newsdesk19 hours ago

EU and China step up cooperation on climate change and clean energy

At the China-EU Summit on 16 July in Beijing, the President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of...

Southeast Asia20 hours ago

Explaining Gendered Wartime Violence: Rohingya Ethnic Cleansing

The United Nations described Rohingyas as ‘amongst the most persecuted minority groups in the world.’ News reports and refugee testimonies...

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy